On 14 Mar 2013, at 23:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
This is a nice lecture by Johan van Benthem that covers the kind of
approach that I am trying to use in my critique of comp:
http://videolectures.net/esslli2011_benthem_logic/ It gives a nice
alternative to the concept of a universal Platonic Mind or secular God
to whom all true statements are known to be true.
It might help you understand my thinking. ;-)
But it does not. Comp needs only arithmetical realism, and oppose
itself to stronger form of platonism or realism, even for the
physical. So I fail to see your point.
Please make you point explicitly.
But from your last post, I think that your theory is no-comp. But I am
not interested in defending the truth of any theory. Just the validity
of a reasoning, which shows that comp leads to a body problem. And
that's what makes comp interesting, imo, as comp explains that the
physical laws have a non physical origin. As a scientist, I don't care
about the truth of a theory. I care only on its refutability.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
